Talk:Stranger in a Strange Land/Archive 1

Original Analysis
"Much of the novel is didactic, consisting of long speeches by the character Jubal Harshaw, a fiction writer with training as a lawyer and medical doctor, who acts as Heinlein's mouthpiece and alter ego presenting many points of view that typify Heinlein's opinions as expressed in his works in general. This is less of a dramatic flaw than in other novels containing Heinlein mouthpieces (e.g., The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and Time Enough for Love), since Harshaw's hardheaded Mark Twain-style realism is effectively contrasted against Smith's mystical and alien point of view, and Harshaw is often proven wrong." It says that in the opening section and that is completely original analysis, thus I am removing it. If you feel the need to revert, and have a good reason/source then feel free to do so. 67.170.214.107 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Science fiction novels category
I reinserted the Category:Science fiction novels as, to me, it is not a given that all books by an author are classified the same. OK, so most of uncle Bob's are, but think Asimov or McCaffrey; they both wrote many books outside the sf genre. IMHO, all books which come under a given genre should be included in the category of that genre no matter who wrote them. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 13:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Polyamory
The nature of these open relationships represented in the book led to the polyamory movement.

SIASL undoubtedly introduced many people to the idea of polyamory, but this is overreaching. The 'polyamory movement' is a big and decidedly non-monolithic entity - such things rarely simplify to a single cause - and it existed in various forms Heinlein. For an example of 19th-century religiously-based polyamory, see Oneida Society.

Significant influence on polyamory, absolutely. 'Led to', no.

--Calair 01:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Attitudes on homosexuality
I understand RAH did reevaluate SIASL's attitudes towards homosexuality, later in life; that probably bears mentioning after that particular irony. But I'll leave this to someone who knows their Heinlein better than I do. --Calair 02:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd point out Friday and Galahad as examples of reasonably healthy, sane bisexual characters in Heinlein's later work. I'm not sure about homosexual characters, though. --FOo 03:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that while Jill described homosexuality as involving "wrongness" at one point, she seemed to have changed her mind by the end.


 * There's a homosexual couple in I Will Fear No Evil, a lawyer and a judge, who go on "fishing trips." (They don't mind kissing Eunice, but they are portrayed as 99.9% gay -- it's only because Eunice is such a sex goddess that she even tempts them.) They're depicted very positively.--Bcrowell 4 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

User L. added a section titled "Criticism" that reads as follows:



I've reverted it, for the following reasons:

(1) "Criticism" here would normally mean literary criticism.

(2) It doesn't make sense to say that Smith's attractiveness to men is derogatory toward homosexuals. If anything, I would think it would be the opposite.

(3) It wasn't Heinlein's intention to eliminate gender roles, but rather to celebrate sex and the difference between the sexes.

--Bcrowell 18:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You have made an unfounded assumption - criticism can indeed refer to the ideas in a book; if you have "literary criticism," you can add it; however, there is currently no category of that name; my use of it is justified.

I am restoring the above passage with disclaimers that Heinlein may have changed his mind. You are welcome to add and subtract to an ongoing debate on the article's page, but not to delete the passage outright. --L. 18:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed the section to "Homosexuality," and rewritten it. There were several problems with what you wrote:

(1) You were trying to attribute the attitudes expressed by Heinlein's characters to Heinlein himself. The characters disagree with each other, and also change their opinions over the course of the book, and even if they didn't, that wouldn't mean that their opinions were the same as Heinlein's.

(2) A comment on long hair looking effete is not the same as hostility to gay people.

(3) It would be helpful if you would give specific quotes from the book, because otherwise there's no way to evaluate what you're claiming.

(4) You said that "However, some of Heinlein's readers argue that Heinlein later changed his position on homosexuality, both in person and in his later work." Actually, I haven't seen much evidence that his attitudes changed. He was never a homophobe, not even when he started writing in the 30's, when he was way ahead of the curve on sexual liberation, and gay sex was a crime in the U.S. Certainly some of his characters say negative things about homosexuality, but again, a random quote from dialog in a book is not the same as the book's over all message. A statement that "some ... readers argue" is not verifiable unless you can give a reference to a source, or at least spell out the evidence you're referring to for a change in Heinlein's ideas (evidence that I don't think exists).

--Bcrowell 21:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised as you - I only added those "changed in later work" to be fair. However, now you have both direct quotes and the properly-cited criticism to back up that interpretation. Also, note:


 * 1. The quote in which gay men are referred to as "misguided" does not come out of any particular character, but is part of the exposition of the novel, meaning the words come directly from Heinlein. Other things spoken, I have addressed with another critic's quote.


 * 2. In the future, be careful when making a claim that Heinlein was simply "celebrating differences" between the genders. That is an interpretation, and another interpretation would be that he is being sexist. --L. 19:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we're making progress. Could you provide a page number and edition for the part about "misguided?" I'd like to be able to read it myself in context. I'm going to make some more edits, for a couple of reasons: (1) The heading "controversy" incorrectly implies that the main controversy about the book is that it doesn't coincide with some people's modern ideas about gender roles and homosexuality. The book has been controversial for many reasons, and this is not anywhere near the top of the list. Similarly "Modern interpretations often focus" is incorrect. (2) I'm going to reinstate the discussion of the fact that the characters' attitudes change over the course of the book.--Bcrowell 20:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This is good - you supplied the exact quotes I had written down earlier. Using the version of the book whose cover appears as the page's graphic, the "misguided" quote comes on p. 220. It concerns the "fan mail" Smith gets after he becomes known to the public; specifically fan mail that consitutes a "proposal" to Smith. It states, "The ladies and other females (plus misguided males) who supplied this category usually included pictures alleged to be of themselves; some left little to the imagination." While characters appear in this scene, it is simply part of the narrative.

I believe "modern interpretations" should stand, as that is what Robinson is talking about. The same could be said for some anti-gay passages in the works of Alfred Bester - he was using the then-prevailing Freudian worldview when he made these deragatory remarks.

A concern, however - have you anything that indicate that, by the end of the novel, the characters have changed their mind on the specific topic of homosexuality? Just because the characters come to terms with BDSM doesn't mean they come to terms with homosexuality, and I don't recall reading anything that indicated this. --L. 22:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi -- I'm glad we seem to be working toward a text we can both live with. Re "modern interpretations," I can't remember what you're referring to --- do you want to make the appropriate edit, and then if necessary we can discuss it? I would like to avoid any implication (which I think would be incorrect) that Heinlein's attitudes on homosexuality are a major focus of what people have written about the book, or that the book is widely seen as homophobic. I've combed through Patterson and Thornton today, and in 180 pages of writing on Stranger, their book barely mention homosexuality. Ditto for H. Bruce Franklin's discussion in Robert A. Heinlein: America as Science Fiction. Re the evolution on Jill's outlook on sex and homosexuality, I believe that after she discovers her own previously unsuspected streak of exhibitionism, she thinks to herself that she's thankful she also didn't discover any attraction to women in herself. This is an ambiguous thing: on the one hand, she's thankful, but on the other hand, she feels that she would have had to accept it if she had discovered it as a natural part of herself. At this point, I'd like to comb through the book for anything relevant to this discussion, and that will take some time.--Bcrowell 23:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Any idea what page the part about "the poor in-betweeners" occurs on? BTW, the passage about the letter seems to be slightly different in the cut and uncut editions.--Bcrowell 02:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Re discussion of Heinlein's views on homosexuality - that is, as I've been saying, a more "modern interpretation" of the book. Moreover (as with all literary criticism), females are much more likely to catch such things than heterosexual males. Unfortunately, my library contains not one book of literary criticism on Heinlein; I suspect I'd have to visit some university library and scour professional journals. In a general sf criticism, David Pringle does note that Heinlein was extremely hung up on gender roles, but that does not specifically address homosexuality.

If passages differ from versions, that is extremely relevant, especially if later editions tried to tone down the passage, which usually constitutes a concession. So far we've been using the earliest editions. --L. 16:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The most extensive criticism on Stranger is the book by Patterson and Thornton, which I bought online. (I think you can buy it either directly from the publisher or from amazon.com, etc.) Other published criticism is listed in the Heinlein article. Re the differences between versions, it didn't have much to do with toning things down. I think you've got an unrealistic idea that these two passages were wildly controversial. When Heinlein originally wrote the book, it was very long. His publisher made him edit it for length (and also for content, although there's nothing in the long version that's really that much racier than in the short version). The short version was published first, the original, long version much later. They're both still in print. The differences I've observed in the two passages we're talking about are just places where he cut words or sentences to make ths shorter length. I'm still not understanding what exactly you're getting at about "modern criticism," because I don't remember the text you were talking about. Patterson and Thornton's book is from 2001. If you're looking for print-published criticism that comments negatively on these passages, I think there's something by Kim Stanley Robinson, which I haven't read.--Bcrowell 17:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

By "modern criticism" I mean that when Heinlein first published the book, a critic would not have brought up the topic of homophobia since that was not a concern of the time. They would have (and did) criticize deragatory statements on women, but a critique based on homosexuality could not have been written for at least another decade. --L. 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see. Patterson and Thornton were writing in 2001, though. Franklin's book (which has a fairly lengthy discussion of Stranger) was written in 1980, 11 years after Stonewall, and well into the era when homophobia was a recognized issue. (It's from a Marxist perspective, but of course Marxists have often been pretty backward in their attitudes about homosexuality.) Gifford's book, written in 2000, also has no mention of any such issue.--Bcrowell 23:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I know of an off-site review of this page at http://srehn.com/books/rh_strangerinastrangeland.html but I feel it would be dishonest for me to link to it because it's on my site.

If anybody else feels it's appropriate to put that link there, do so, but I won't.

Duke's interest in what exactly?
The description "Duke's interest in sadomasochistic pornography" goes beyond what's in the book. In the passage I think this is based on, all we get is that there is a picture with some kind of sexual content, which one (easily shocked) character finds shocking, but another character suggests that Duke would like. I would strike the word "sadomasochistic", unless there is some further information about Duke's photo collection elsewhere in the book, that I've forgotten about.

I guess I could have just made the edit and stood back to see if anyone objected, but I'm new here and feeling a bit cautious.

--TwentyThree 18:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember Duke has a collection of 'porn' - and says something along the lines of 'this one's not got a good face but those legs - o mamma!' - Valentine at this time has difficulty in telling one young female face from another. I also don't remember anything about sadomasochism. Alf melmac 06:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Significance of Names
I remember reading that a lot of the names in the story were carefully chosen because of what they mean. For example, Michael means "who is like God" and Jubal means "father of all." I wasn't sure if that would fit anywhere or where in the article that sort of information would go, so I thought I'd bring it up here and see if anyone could do anything with it.

Billy Shears 21:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would love to see this in the article. --Lukobe 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The meaning of "Jubal" could be listed incorrectly or may simply be truncated. From Googling the name "Jubal", I've seen definitions like "the father of all who play the harp and organ" with variations in musical instruments listed all the way to a generalization of "the father of all who play musical instruments".  Someone may wish to do more research than I on this matter and make an update, if appropriate. --anon  4 February 2008

Stranger in a Homo Land?
Currently, Stranger in a Homo Land is a redirect to this article. Is this a phrase that is commonly used to refer to this book? If not, the redirect should be deleted. Austrian 22:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Googling produces zero hits. AFAICT from the histories, a vandal moved Stranger in a Strange Land to Stranger in a Homo Land back in January and Longhair promptly moved it back, leaving a redirect. It looks to meet the criteria for speedy deletion, so I'll list it there. --Calair 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination
I came and have had an interesting read, I would like to see citations in the section on Critisms. I've left this one on nominations page as it should be very easy to fix within a couple of days Gnangarra 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of facts still needing citation so I've removed this from the nominations list for now. Also, Like many influential works of literature... clearly carries the point of view that this is an influential work of literature - the encyclopaedia should not adopt that viewpoint but should report it and cite it, if it is widely held.  Worldtraveller 12:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is indeed a widely held view, but yes, we definitely need to cite that view. --M @ r ē ino 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research in Homosexuality section?
Hey, all. I like the work that's been put into this already. One query. There is a suggestion (re. the word "misguided") that the homophilic (gay or bi) men who write Mike might be considered misguided (from Jill's point of view, are we arguing, now?) because they didn't "realize Mike was exclusively heterosexual."

Plausible, but where does that come from? Is this original research? Does it say anywhere in the book that he is, in fact, only open to sex with women? I would think that on the contrary, there are plenty of implications that Mike is not bound up by such socially created rules. The phrasing in the article is a nice theory but unless it's sourced or otherwise supported by text or by criticism, it looks like OR.Eh Nonymous 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm replying to this question as it's over two years old, but in the interest of completeness and closure:

It may indeed be Original Research to suggest that "misguided" refers to a misjudgment of Mike's personal sexual interest, rather than to a generalized value-judgment on homosexuality. There is simply no way of being sure what this comment refers to.

But to counter it with the suggestion that Mike's heterosexuality cannot be established from the text is absurd. The fact that he flouts many other social rules has no bearing on the question. Even if one ignores, for fear of OR, the fact that all of the character's sexual activity and interest is described as exclusively heterosexual, still Mike's own orientation is stated unequivocally in a speech he makes to Jubal, describing his desire to share the ecstasy of sexuality "directly with those female" and "[i]indirectly[/i]... with those male" (italics mine) - i.e., by inviting his male brothers to share the same females. This same speech establishes that Mike's fascination with sexuality hinges on the appreciation of gender difference ("Male-femaleness is the greatest gift we have"). No Original Research required. Quotes are from pp. 419-20 of the 1987 Ace edition. 12.76.183.42 (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair Witnesses
Novelist Jubal Harshaw employs three Fair Witneses as his secretaries.

I think this sentence and the following paragraph are erroneous. I don't see any mention of Dorcas or Miriam being Fair Witnesses. Both of them are shown typing the stories Jubal dictates. Only Anne memorizes them. 172.165.47.30 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Only Anne was a Fair Witness. All three were picked for their jobs in part for their excellent memories, which became even better when they learned Martian; in fact, Gillian could take "front" duty eventually. Learning Martian imparted, or perhaps gave one access to, various mental and/or psychic abilities, beginning with telepathy, control of one's own metabolic functions, and the ability to "grok a wrongness", and leading to telepathy of varied magnitude and the ability to turn objects 90 degrees away from everything.Coffeehog (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Spirituality
Heinlein's Martians here and in Red Planet seem to be the same creatures. They dwell in two worlds. How shall we describe this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Martians are beings with three life stages and one after-life stage: they begin as eggs, hatch into "Martian bouncers", become adults, then become Ancient Ones when they discorporate. We don't know exactly what Martian eggs look like, but they refer to them often.

Bouncers are round and furry, so one doesn't immediately notice that they (like most Martian life forms) are tri-laterally symmetrical rather than bi-laterally, as we are. They are a bit larger than a basketball, and have three bumps upon which they "careen" for surprisingly fast land travel, three eyes on stalks, a three-sided mouth, and at least one very sharp claw they use as a cutting tool (and perhaps a weapon if necessary); all these are totally retractable, leaving the bouncer appearing to be a featureless furry ball. They are supreme vocal mimics.

Martian adults are taller than humans, but their ability to unfold into a tall thin form or fold down for what passes for "sitting" makes it hard to determine the average height or the race. They are tri-laterally symmetrical, with three arms, three legs, three eyes, etc. They have exo-skeletons with a hard thorax covering, and membranes connecting what serves as fingers and toes to form large uneven discs of tough skin shaped roughly like lily pads.

Martian Ancient Ones appear to look just like adult Martians; one may even be fooled into believing they are not dead. However, this is probably merely their appearance, not their true nature. They live in the same world we do; in fact, the Martians have no concept of property ownership since the original inhabitants of any property never left. They, and adults for that matter, do seem to have access to an "astral plane" in which their non-corporial selves can accomplish things. Humans can learn to do the same, but evidentially our Old Ones don't stick around as a rule.Coffeehog (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Importance of the title.
Does anyone know of any hidden metaphorical importance of this novels title? 207.28.173.253 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the quote is Biblical; Gershom was one of Moses' sons, named Ger (stranger) Shom (there).

"And Moses was content to dwell with the man [Reuel]: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land." -- Exodus 2: 21-22 (KJV) Coffeehog (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to throw out an alternative possible source for the title of this novel. It mentions in the article that "Stranger in a Strange Land" refers to Moses, whose exile caused him to utter something to the effect of being a stranger in a foreign place. However, I just translated one of Sophocles' Oedipus plays from the 5th Century B.C.E., "Oedipus at Colonus." In it, Oedipus, an exiled king, mutters the same exact phrase, "I am a stranger in a strange land," upon his arrival at a certain shrine in a foreign land. Most of his adult life has been spent wandering blindly through the countryside of Greece, hoping to one day return and engender his beleagured people with a new hope. I am not sure if there is really proof for one interpretation or another, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. 199.89.180.65 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Liz Adams

I am reading Bram Stoker's Dracula and in Chapter 2, when Dracula tells Harker why he wants Harker to stay and help him speak English like a native speaker, he says "But a stranger in a strange land, he is no one." It may be that both Stoker and Heinlein were referencing the bible (or Sophocles) and I would be surprised if Heinlein wasn't familiar with all three sources. Plbogen (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I needed a date on this one to place it in context. From WP: "Abraham "Bram" Stoker (8 November 1847 – 20 April 1912) was an Irish novelist and short story writer, best known today for his 1897 Gothic novel Dracula."  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

With all the above, it is clear the "popular references" is completely wrong --- Iron Maiden and others are clearly referring to Dracula, if not the Bible! In the "chamber version" of book (the script used for the 1925 Bela Lugosi film --- meant for a touring theatre company so small cast and limited scenes/sets) Dracula is in a Hampstead home, presenting himself as a foreign count, saying "I am but a stranger in a strange land". I'd strongly argue to remove the entire section if not heavily pad it with warnings that the quotations are doubtful. I'd argue Heinlein is referring to Exodus but heavily mindful of Dracula in choosing his title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.249.202 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Front?
What does it mean when Jubal yells the word "Front"? 12.216.218.100 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is the once traditional call of a hotel's desk clerk for the next bell-boy in line to take the bags of the guest who has just registered. In context, it simply means "Next secretary up, please". 205.210.232.62 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Differences between the 1961 and 1991 versions?
I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to add a description or summary of the actual differences between the 1961 and 1991 versions of the book, since the article states that 25%, a significant amount, was cut because it was "objectionable". I think people who have read one version or the other are not likely to have read both and are likely to be curious as to what was considered to objectionable to be published in 1961. Cyucheng (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds like a good idea.216.99.198.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

Church of All Worlds
The Church of All Worlds was founded in 1968, not 1962. Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon, 1986 edition, p. 295 TomSwiss (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any editions with illustrations?
Which of the editions has illustrations, if any?

Do some editions have different covers? If so, the main article could be improved by including a list of the illustrators, and a description as to the nature of the cover. 216.99.198.85 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Heinlein's disgust with some fans of the book
I remember reading a later Heinlein book where he (in between the stories or articles, can't remember) notes that some hippies who idolised the book but ignored some of his ideals became quite a pest on his privacy for a while, trying to visit and entering his property without permission etc...

Can anyone remember which book that was, so we could include it as referenced matrial? Ingolfson (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't remember that but he was most likely referring to the Church of All Worlds, if that helps. Yworo (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he was not - he was referring specifically to random individuals not respecting his privacy because they considered themselves acquaintances of a sort, having read and liked his book. I think it might have been in "Expanded Universe" which mixed stories and essays. Ingolfson (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll leave it to you to find then. Yworo (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot section
The plot section is around 1500 words; How_to_write_a_plot_summary recommends 300 to 500 as sufficient. Yworo (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Literary significance and criticism
It seems that most of the Literary significance and criticism section has absolutely nothing to do with its stated topic and is more of a statement of the books influence on popular culture. In particular, the information on the forming of the church by Tim Zell has already been stated elsewhere in the article and has nothing to do with the books literary significance. Similarly, the paragraph on Heinlein's mention of waterbeds and its impact on a patent claim does not belong either. Literary significance and criticism should include examples of critical reaction to the work and its place in literature. In my opinion this section should be expunged and rewritten with the proper content. Mwbeatty (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, that section needs to be deleted as it is, and something written about the literary significance of the novel, as well as some criticism, should be inserted. After having read this book, I feel like it is so awful as to be almost good again.  Someone has to have written about the incredibly misogynistic way Heinlein characterizes women, they are barely even one-dimensional.  Of course, that is my own OR but I'm sure others have had that opinion and hopefully they've written about it in reliable sources.  128.223.131.109 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Working Title
At the head of the article: "the novel's working title was The Heretic."

Near the bottom: "'A Martian Named Smith' was [...] Heinlein's working title for the book"

Shurely shome mishtake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.56.128 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely he could have gone through more than one working title during the time it took to write this lengthy book. --Rpresser 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He certainly may have, but the second title is lacking any source, so I added a fact tag.--~TPW 22:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gave it one. --Rpresser 02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Angels are always angels, not dead humans
It's not laid out explicitly in the text, but in Heinlein's personal correspondence, he makes it manifestly clear that Mike, Foster, and Digby are angels in human form, intervening on Earth -- not humans who become angels upon death.
 * BEYOND THIS HORIZON made use of the notion of reincarnation. STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND makes no use of the idea of reincarnation and does make use of the idea of angelic intervention--three of the characters are specifically stated to be angels (Mike, Digby, and Foster); in three others the implication is so strong that the reader is therby invited to accept them as angels if he wishes (Pat, George, and Mrs. Douglas) although apparently of lower rank than archangel in the fictional hierarchy. The rest of the characters may be presumed to be humans or Martians, save for some djinns, houris, etc., off stage.
 * -- Robert Anson Heinlein, 19 Aug 1961, unsent draft of letter to Fred Pohl and Algis Budrys. Collected in The Robert A. and Virginia Heinlein Archives, Box 332, file no. CORR332b-10. Access purchased 2010-05-16 from http://www.heinleinarchives.net/upload/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=794.

--Rpresser 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is Dr. Mahmoud called "Stinky"?
Is this rather insulting nickname ever explained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.70.122 (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)